Filetype PDF | Posted on 21 Sep 2022 | 4 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
278x Filetype PDF File size 0.67 MB Source: www.redalyc.org
Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences
ISSN: 1679-7361
ISSN: 1807-8656
actahuman@uem.br
Universidade Estadual de Maringá
Brasil
Ito, Nobuiuki Costa; Gimenez, Fernando Antonio Prado; Hayashi Junior, Paulo
Theory development process and the fundamental explananda of strategy
Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences, vol. 41, no. 1, 2019, January-April
Universidade Estadual de Maringá
Brasil
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4025/actascihumansoc.v41i1.43991
Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=307360096002
How to cite
Complete issue
Scientific Information System Redalyc
More information about this article
Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and
Portugal
Journal's webpage in redalyc.org
Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative
Acta Scientiarum http://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/acta
ISSN on-line: 1807-8656
Doi: 10.4025/actascihumansoc .v41i1.43991
ADMINISTRATION
Theory development process and the fundamental explananda
of strategy
1* 2 3
Nobuiuki Costa Ito , Fernando Antonio Prado Gimenez e Paulo Hayashi Junior
1 2
Universidade de São Paulo, Ibmec São Paulo, Alameda Santos, 2356, 01419-002, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba,
Paraná, Brasil. 3Faculdade de Ciências Aplicadas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Limeira, São Paulo, Brasil. *Autor para correspondência. E-mail:
nobuiuki.ito@ibmec.edu.br
ABSTRACT. The purpose of this essay is an exploration of the current scientific status of the Strategic
Management field. This essay is an attempt to open up the debate within the philosophy of strategy
science, which means that the aim is to clarify critical issues related to research rather than explaining
strategic phenomena. Hempel and Oppenheim’s (1948) description of explanation is the chosen
framework structure as it involves the constitutive elements of a theory, as well as providing a synthesis
of these elements in a single explanandum. Five main phenomena are described as the fundamental
explananda, namely: (i) competitive advantage; (ii) strategic levels; (iii) the strategic process; (iv) strategy
implementation; and (v) social outcomes. Relationships between these elements are assessed and
commented. The paper’s purpose is not to describe a general theory of strategic management, but to
induce scholars to question certain issues.
Keywords: theory; Explananda; strategic management.
Processo de desenvolvimento teórico e as explananda fundamentais da estratégia
RESUMO. O objetivo desse ensaio é explorar o status científico atual do campo da Administração
Estratégica. Esse ensaio é uma tentativa de abrir o debate na filosofia da ciência da estratégia, o que
significa que a meta é esclarecer assuntos centrais relacionados à pesquisa ao invés de assuntos relativos à
explicação dos fenômenos estratégicos. A descrição de explicação de Hempel and Oppenheim (1948) é a
estrutura analítica escolhida pois envolve os elementos constituintes de uma teoria, bem como prove uma
síntese de tais elementos em um único explanadum. Os cinco fenômenos principais da estratégia são
descritos como explananda fundamentais, a saber: (i) vantagem competitiva; (ii) níveis da estratégia; (iii)
processo da estratégia; (iv) implementação estratégica; (v) resultados sociais. As relações entre os
elementos são avaliadas e comentadas. O propósito do estudo não é descrever uma teoria geral da
administração estratégica, mas induzir pesquisadores à questionar aspectos centrais do campo.
Palavras-chave: teoria; Explananda; administração estratégica.
Received on August 4, 2018.
Accepted on December 8, 2018.
Introduction
It can be argued that the strategic management field made early developments towards a non-theoretical
path, which emphasized practice and was carried out by consulting firms (e.g. the Boston Consulting Group
and McKinsey & Co). Despite the central role played by the Harvard Business School as a research and
education institution, in general, strategy scholars sought to develop managerial tools – such as SWOT
analysis, the BCG Matrix, the Ansoff matrix, the learning curve and others – rather than theories, in an
attempt simply to reproduce a particular successful firm's strategy in other companies (Ansoff, 1965;
Ghemawat, 2002). Despite the immediate impact on business practices, the chosen path prevented genuine
thought and reflection concerning the fundamental issues of the strategic phenomenon. Basic tasks, such as
delimiting field domains and frontiers, proposing theoretical assumptions, highlighting the object or unit of
analysis and defining methods, were not completely fulfilled.
The result of this state of affairs is a field in which research programmes include a broad range of
investigative efforts in which there is a prohibitive number of critical elements regarding the strategic
phenomenon, and a diversity of theoretical grounds (or researcher’s lenses). As a consequence of this lack of
Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences, v. 41, e43991, 2019
Page 2 of 13 Ito et al.
an explanatory apparatus, the backbone of the field is questioned (Mintzberg, 1994) and – thinking about
the progress of the field – one can observe little theoretical accumulation and a degree of academic
disillusionment about the value of the existing literature (Volberda, 2004). Under Kuhn’s analysis, the
strategic management field can be categorized as being in a pre-paradigmatic state as “[…] [t]he pre-
paradigm period, in particular, is regularly marked by frequent and deep debates over legitimate methods,
problems, and standards of solution, though these serve rather to define schools than to produce
agreement” (Kuhn, 1962-1970, p. 47-48).
The purpose of this paper is to explore the current scientific status of the Strategic Management field.
This essay is an attempt to open up debates within the philosophy of strategy science, which means that the
aim is to clarify critical issues concerning research rather than explaining strategic phenomena. In other
words, as a philosophical effort, this essay does not intend to outline the general theory of strategy. Instead,
adopting a philosophical approach grounded in the scientific structure of the natural sciences, we offer an
assessment of the theoretical development as well as the interconnection of its constituent parts. We hope
this initial attempt will foster new discussions addressing the alleged lack of theoretical backbone and
consequently the poor understanding of strategic phenomena and the fragile empirical support of its main
theories. Thus, this essay is an attempt to provide some thoughts on the developmental stage of strategy as
a scientific field.
Theory development: a system of explananda
The primary function of science is not to transform the world or build a better world, but rather to
understand the world. Understanding, comprehending and explaining a phenomenon is part of the nature of
science, aiming to establish causal relationships and facilitate, in a sense, the ability of prediction
(Kerlinger, 1979). The main function of the philosophy of science, in turn, is not the explanation, but rather
the clarification. Questioning issues related to the definition of science, the understanding of the logical
structure, theories, methods and the implications of scientific investigations are the concerns of philosophy
in this area (Klemke, 1998). Thus, we argue that one of the most important purposes of science is theory
building and an important function of the philosophy of science is the assessment of the theory-building
process. In this line, the first step is to develop a proper lens with which to analyze the theory-building
process in strategic management.
However, what is a theory? Simply put, a theory is a logical construction to explain a given
phenomenon, which departs from some assumptions, stating concepts and how and why these concepts
interrelate with each other to understand a phenomenon (Corley & Gioia, 2011). Whetten (1989) points
to three building blocks of a theoretical contribution: (1) ‘what’, i.e. the factors relevant to a particular
phenomenon; (2) ‘how’, referring to the way(s) in which the relevant factors interrelate; and (3) ‘why’,
explaining the dynamics justifying the selection of the relevant factors and their cause-effect
relationships. It is an understanding that goes beyond common sense in the explanation of a
phenomenon (Sutton & Staw, 1995).
Within the developmental process of a scientific field, theory-building blocks emerge progressively
through the collective work of researchers, articulated in papers and book publications and debates at
conferences and seminars, which leads to consensus-based knowledge. The harder and perhaps most fruitful
contributions in theory building are within the ‘why’ block (Whetten, 1989), considering that a robust
theory involves a deep and systematic understanding of the reasons for the occurrence or the non-
occurrence of a phenomenon, supported by consistently interconnected arguments.
The explanations of the phenomenon, according to Hempel and Oppenheim (1948), can be broken
1
down into two constituent aspects: the explanandum and the explanans. The explanandum is a
statement that describes the phenomenon, whereas the explanans is the set of statements that drive
the description of the phenomenon, which can be law-like claims and the information of the
antecedent conditions. It means that an explanandum must be logically deduced from the explanans.
The explanans has two subclasses: the first is the antecedent conditions that have previously been
assumed to explain the phenomenon; the second comprises the general laws capable of predicting
the event.
1
Explananda is the plural form of explanandum.
Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences, v. 41, e43991, 2019
Theory development and explananda of strategy ...Page 3 of 13
C, C , C , ..., C Statements of antecedent conditions
1 2 3 k Explanans
Logical Deduction L , L , L , ..., L General Laws
1 2 3 k
E Description of the empirical Explanandum
phenomenon to be explained
Figure 1. The logical structure of explanation (Hempel & Oppenheim, 1948).
The characterization offered by Hempel and Oppenheim (1948), as Figure 1 shows, can clarify the
evaluation of explanation, as well as be useful as a theory-building guide. Hempel and Oppenheim (1948)
acknowledged that there are some gaps in the employment of this analysis of explanation in the social
sciences. Taking into account the complexity of phenomena involving human behaviour, it is harder to
make law-like claims (generalizations), as we can find in physics or chemistry, for example. Nonetheless,
the authors also acknowledge the overreaction against the application of the rationale to social and human
sciences. For instance, Hempel (1942) discusses the function of general laws in the study of History. Thus,
despite the reservations, we claim that it is possible to apply the explanatory logical structure to strategic
management enlightened by its explananda, even if there is some looseness concerning objectivity and
mathematical rigor. This claim is also based on two aspects. First, Kuhn (1998), revisiting the process of
scientific endeavor in the social sciences vis-à-vis the natural sciences, posited that the social sciences (or
human sciences, in his terms) seem to present a hermeneutic base, whereas the natural sciences follow
2
puzzle-solving research, at least in normal science periods. Despite this initial examination, Kuhn recalled
that two centuries ago, chemistry suffered from the very same problem as the social sciences today,
regarding the impossibility of puzzle-solving research. He also remarked that parts of some fields in the
human (social) sciences perhaps already apply puzzle-solving research, for example in economics and
psychology. Thus, there is no doubt that there are frontiers between the natural and social (human)
sciences, but this division line allows some overlaps, in terms of scientific structure of theories and
methods.
Second, taking advantage of Kuhn’s statement concerning the scientific status of economics, which is
3
close to the structure of the natural sciences like physics (Mirowski, 1989) , we emphasize that mainstream
research on strategic management is deeply grounded in economics (Mahoney, 2005). For instance, the
environmental and resource perspectives of competitive advantage – a central concept in the strategic
management field – are built on different economic backgrounds, such as industrial organization (Porter,
1981), the theory of firm growth (Penrose, 1959), factor markets (Barney, 1986), microeconomics and the
theory of rents (Barney & Peteraf, 2003).
Although the logical structure offered by an explanandum is related solely to the explanation of a certain
phenomenon, we argue that a more general theory could be derived from this rationale. We already
advocated that an explanandum assembles all the characteristics of a theory, such as the relevant factors and
the description of the interacting mechanisms among factors to produce an expected result. Thus, a set of
few inter-related explananda could generate an even more general theory, which encompasses a whole
scientific field. This conclusion is shared with Hunt (1983, p. 14), stating that “[…] to be successful [in
building a general theory of Marketing] would be the procedure of developing a general theory for each of
the […] sets of fundamental explananda, and then integrating each of the […] theories into one
comprehensive schema”.
Thus, assessing set of a few interrelated explananda that – in a general manner – explain the
fundamental issues of the whole scientific field, can be useful to evaluate a broader theory development
process. This general perspective provides a systematic framework that goes beyond the explanatory power
of an individual phenomenon. The explananda allow the merging of several theories into a single
explanation. Keeping these ideas in mind, we can consider the strategic management field and its main
potential issues.
2
Normal science is the stage when scientific inquiries are carried on without challenge the underlying assumptions of the theories, because the current paradigm is settled. The
normal science stage corresponds to the regular work of the scientists, when they observe and conduct experiments within a consolidated framework and methods. It is a sequence
of efforts for confirming theories rather than challenge its assumptions.
3
We acknowledge that economic theory, different from physics, is built upon assumptions on human behaviour. In this sense, phenomena in economics present different nature
when compared to physics. Nevertheless, grounding in Mirowski (1989), we claim that physics and economics are similar in terms of theoretical structure and, especially,
mathematical formalization.
Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences, v. 41, e43991, 2019
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
